To:THE MINING AND METALLURGICAL WORKERS’ UNION

Written:Written in October 1903Published:First published in 1904 in the book: L. Martov,The Struggle Against the “State of Siege” Within the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, Geneva. Sent from Geneva. Printed from the text of the book.Source:Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers,1974, Moscow,Volume 34, pages182-183.Translated:Clemens DuttTranscription\Markup:D. MorosPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive (2005).You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.

Wehave received your
resolution[2]and ask you to reply to the following
questions. Please discuss them at a general meeting of all the members of the
Committee (or send them to all the members, if they are not together) as an
enquiry from the editorial board of the Party’s Central Organ.

1)Hasthe Committee heard a report from the representative of
the Majority at the Party Congress?

2)Doesthe Committee consider it normal to pass a re solution appraising the
activities and decisions of the Congress before the minutes have been
issued, and even before the Committee has enquired of the Central Committee
or members of the Majority about matters which are not clear to it?

3)Howcould these disagreements on organisational questionsdestroyeverything previously done byIskraand the Organising Committee?
   How did thedestructionmanifest itself?What exactlywas
   destroyed? We are not at all clear on this, and if you want to safeguard the
   Central Organ from any kind of error, it is your duty to explain to us what
   you regard as our error. Set the matter out in full detail and we shall
   carefully discuss your opinion.

4)Whatexactly are the “sharpdisagreements on
organisational questions”? We do not know. (We asked Martov and the former
members ofIskra’seditorial board to expound these
disagreementsin the pages of the publications edited by us, but so far
our request has not been complied
with.[1]

5)Inwhat do you see the atmosphere of political intrigue and distrust? On the
   part of whom? Be more explicit. (Ifwedistrusted Martov we would
   not have invited him to work inIskra.)

6)Ifthere really are “sharp disagreements on organisational questions” between us and the former editors, how can the two of us
co-opt the four of them? That surely would mean makingtheirtendency
the dominant one? But the Congress pronounced inour favour,
didn’t it? What you want, therefore, is that the decision of the Congress
should be revised on the basis of a private agreement.

7)Doyou consider it normal that by threats of a split,
boycott, etc., people should want to make Party officials (editors of the
Central Organ, and the Central Committee) do something that these central bodies
do not consider useful in the interests of the Party?

8)Doyou consider it normal and permissible that Party members who have been
   left in a minority should abstain from work in the Central Organ, from
   supporting the central Committee and obeying it, from helping the Party
   financially, and so forth?

[1]Seepp. 173–74 of this volume.—Ed.

[2]Thisrefers to the resolution adopted by the Committee of the Mining and
Metallurgical Workers’ Union on the results of the Party’s Second Congress.